As long as the government workers forced into the Healthcare Exchange include the Governor and the legislators, I'm cool with it.

Absolutely. They're government employees, aren't they? All state and municipal employees should be forced into it. Frankly, so should all federal employees.

@GearHead...It's not surprising that you don't know what a moderate is.

@Lyle With all of my conversations with you, I can obviously conclude that you are not a moderate. Get with it Lyle- you are a left wing extremist.

@Lyle Ruble... In politics, a moderate is an individual who is not extreme, partisan or radical??? ('J' - states with a modest rhetorical tone)

I await your definition.('J' - in earnest)

('J' - exit center stage)[where all moderates exit!]

Perhaps "centrist" would be a better term to use in place of "moderate" as it has, traditionally, been used. At this point it would seem more appropriate to use moderate as a way to describe the fashion in which one goes about expressing their personal political leanings than as a way to pinpoint where they stand politically on the left/right continuum. Lyle's political leanings, for instance, while expressed in a moderate manner, are in no way what most would describe as centrist.

@ Randy Randy you do not go far enough. I feel all elected officials at the state level including the members of the State Supreme court and all political appointees should no longer recieve pensions. They should get a 401 K like most everyone else.

Lyle calls republican's extremist, and has the raisins to call himself a moderate?

What a complete moron. He most surely doesn't see that he is no better than the "extremists" he points the fingers at.

lol @ Gearhead ......Lyle thinks hes a moderate .....HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

I think Wisconsin is the only state without any toll roads--how extreme can creating a toll road system really be?

(cont.) The final means for increasing funding for transportation would be to impose a mileage usage fee at the time of annual registration.

Tax and spend is not a good solution. You are wrong. How would you like it if we taxed kosher food to fund the aggression of Israel towards Hamas?

@Neil A Rubble...Tax and spend? We already have an obligation to the infrastructure, The only question is how to fund it for maintenance, improvements and expansions. Funding comes in the form of taxes or fees. I really don't think you're being realistic and your ideology prevents you from seeking reasonable solutions.

As far as the tax on Kosher food, it is clearly a red herring fallacy. In the first place there are to few observant Jews and Muslims to make any kind of significant contribution to funding anything through taxing Kosher foods. Also, the conflicts between Israel and Hamas is completely off the subject.

Increasing sales taxes and including 'haircuts' to as a taxable item for road and bridge funding? Funding of Roads and Bridges need not be done through some 'general fund' scheme.

Rather than tangential accounting changes,lets simply and clearly target the current sales tax collected on new/used vehicle sales to pay for our roads and bridges. Additional road and bridge funding could be found in the sales tax amount Wisconsin currently collects on vehicle parts and repairs.

Lyle. Thank you for the correction. Perhaps your are correct I am not being realistic. How about this. We install a GPS in ever car and it tracks the mileage and routes you take. At the end of the month you get a bill for "road use". It would be a State of Wisconsin program and visitors would be charged a flat daily rate.

And perhaps the tax of Kosher foods is just symbolic. Or maybe have a 10% tax on Kosher foods....an aggression tax against Israel, a blood tax for all the Hamas people the Israel people have killed. But channel 1% towards the road infastructure for the State of Wisconsin.

I have seen small business go out of business because of the additional tax they pay besides at the pump! Higher vehicle registration fees also is a killer.
We need to cut the waste in Gvt spending before we even consider giving the SOBS any more of our moeny. If we do not adress the leaky bucket, they will continue to piss away our funds.
A toll road is fine, WI residents can get a price break. Let the FIBS pay triple, and other out of state traffic can pay double.

@Lyle:"Tax and spend? We already have an obligation to the infrastructure,"
While this may be true one has to look at things on a smaller scale to understand the situation.
Imagine a family living well until the economy crapped on them. Mom lost her job and dad is on reduced hours. The mortgage remains as do property taxes, car payments, food, utilities, kids dental appointments, etc.
On less than half of their former income, it is not going to be a priority to have the house resided or painted. Now Would not be the time to upgrade to High Definition Cable and buy a new HD3DTV. You look at the tires on the cars and decide if you can squeek by one more Winter by rotating them, or do they need replacement?
One thing is for certain, only an idiot would have the driveway repaved at this time.

@Craig....Please point out to me where all the fat is in the state budget. If you claim we must strip out the fat before seeking additional revenues, then let's identify those areas. I think what you will find is that there isn't the kind of fat your talking about. Your proposal, if followed, would only divert funding from other program services.

@Jay Sykes....If we could generate enough revenue through sales tax on new/used vehicles and car parts, I would support that. In fact that makes a great deal of sense.

@Lyle: For one: State employees only pay 12.5% of the cost of their retirement and health insurance. The National average is 25%. Many millions to be saved there.
Bridges and Highways should be part of a National cost, as we didn't build them- someone else did.

@Craig...The state employees are paying 12.5%, granted; but they are also paid much less than their private counterparts. Part of their compensation is found in the benefit package. This is not fat, this is fair compensation for work performed.

@Lyle: I disagree. That may have been true at one time, but is not the case anymore. Ask anyone looking for a job in the private sector, the total package ain't like it used to be.

@Craig....The state employees are not compensated as they once were. Newly entering workers are entering in at much lower salaries and wages since the unions are no longer in play. This is already having an effect on attracting the best and the brightest and retention.

Lyle I was unaware there were new hires since ACT10. If the new employees are payed so much less than the older ones, maybe it is time for everyone to make the same amount. One way to do that is to reduce the pay rate of the older employees in order to pay the newer ones more. Spread the wealth so to speak. In the process, they can skim some off the top to pay for infrastructure improvements.
This would be stealing a page out of the liberal playbook.
;-P

@Craig...When Act 10 passed a good share of eligible workers took retirement. Many agencies were left understaffed, so hiring was done to meet minimum staffing levels only. Some agencies are left in a state of under-staffing and will not increase staffing at this time. As far as reducing wages of the older staff that would be unwise. If the experienced staff leaves, then the agencies will be significantly crippled, directly negatively impacting service delivery and public safety.

You appear to be too intelligent to seriously consider your proposal as valid.

But Lyle, how is that any different than what the private sector has been doing for several years?
I agree we need to do something to improve our infrastructure, but you can't get blood out of a turnip.

Lyle wrote: "@Craig...The state employees are paying 12.5%, granted; but they are also paid much less than their private counterparts..."
Sorry Lyle, that fallacy has been going around for years.
First, how many private police, fire, game wardens... do you know. It's not accurate to make a comparison to something that doesn't exist.
Second, most private school teachers that I am aware of make far less that their public counterparts, and very often for much fewer benefits.

Public employees, as a whole, make a good living, still have great benefits, and unbelievable job security.

Anti makes a great point. I may be number two on the seniority list at the local foundry. But it doesn't do me a hell of a lot of good if the plant closes due to EPA BS, or China outsourcing.
Conversely, a public works employee pretty much has a job for life. I know it is hard to lean on a broom, but the security that comes with it makes it all worth it. I have been looking for an underpaid government employee, but all I ever find is overpaid deadbeats. That's not to say they all are deadbeats, but there is more in the public sector than the private.

@The Anti-Alinsky...There is a number of position in the public sector that you wouldn't find in the private sector. Whether you believe it or not, even professionals working for the state are making a great deal less than their private counterparts.

As far as school teachers are concerned, that is a different matter. They are not state employees, but are employed by the various school districts. Therefore we aren't discussing the same thing.

If everyone thinks that state employees have such a good deal why isn't everyone applying to the state for employment?

Lyle wrote: "...Whether you believe it or not, even professionals working for the state are making a great deal less than their private counterparts..."
Which professionals are you talking about? The private policeman? The private game warden? Maybe the private law professor?

The point is there are very few jobs you can make the apple to apples comparison between public sector and private. And the few you can are probably not that far apart in overall compensation.

Lyle,

All things considered, public employees make about 19% more than private employees. In addition, turnover is incredibly low because of it.

http://static.maciverinstitute.com/CompStudyAppendix.pdf

Lyle said:

Please point out to me where all the fat is in the state budget. If you claim we must strip out the fat before seeking additional revenues, then let's identify those areas. I think what you will find is that there isn't the kind of fat your talking about. Your proposal, if followed, would only divert funding from other program services.

............

@Lyle

Besides public employees being compensated at an average 19% higher than those in the private sector, it strikes me as odd that productivity and profitability in the private sector hits new highs year after year (especially in the US and France). It makes me wonder why this can't happen in the public sector.

Of course it can happen.

@Luke...McGiver Institute isn't a source that I would be quoting. As far as I'm concerned that would be like me quoting 'Mother Jones'. How about something that isn't so biased. McGiver is a right wing tool.

Lyle - Attacking the source is a cop out, and you know it.

Apparently you want to be a critic of the GOP and want others to take you seriously. Double standard. Perhaps we should pay attention to your comments regarding Walker only when you agree with him.

@Luke...I went through your link and could not find anything stating that Wisconsin state workers make 19% more than their private counterparts. McGiver is notorious for "cherry picking" and they are the "go to" guys whenever the GOP wants data to back up something. In the methods of the link you provided, there were assumptions that I wouldn't necessarily agree with. But more importantly, citing unpublished data; what is that? You know as well as I that studies must meet certain standards for validity and reliability, neither of which can be determined by the linked source.

Ok, Lyle, let's get another point of reference starting with this.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

Lyle?

http://www.aei.org/papers/economics/the-impact-of-act-10-on-public-sector-compensation-in-wisconsin/

@Luke...I looked at your provided links and there are still huge problems. The USA Today article compares federal workers to private workers. The AEI article is written by fellows from CATO and Heritage Foundation, which makes the manipulation of data questionable. For one, they are mixing all public employees and then isolate state employs and compare to private sector businesses of 100+ rather than 500+. They also gloss over much of the comparative data between workers. Bottom line is that this is more smoke than substance. I still haven't found where you came up with the 19%, except maybe out of your backside.

On the contrary, Lyle, the USA Today article has state and local compensation compared in the bar graph. Look again.

However, the link below explains how the 19% is calculated, and it takes into account many more factors than the USA Today article.

Lyle?

http://www.maciverinstitute.com/2012/11/maciver-institute-study-finds-government-employees-make-19-percent-more-than-private-sector-workers/

Lyle?

@Luke...Sorry, but it goes back to my original response, McGiver is seriously flawed and completely biased.

Lyle - I don't blame you for going back to your original point. That way you don't have to address all the other sources. When you don't want to find your wallet, you can entertain yourself by checking the same pocket over and over again and ignoring the other three.

Steve, I'm guessing that members of the MI and MN state legislature didn't try to redefine geological terminology to dodge the issue of possible pollutants in the soil composition of the proposed mine. Geologists from the University of Minnesota have conducted extensive soil testing, for example. Please check my previous posts for multiple links on the subject at the time the egregious Wisconsin mining bill was under discussion.

Remember too that the entire mining team leadership had already been tapped, all were out of state. All but 800 jobs were temporary; the jobs that were "permanent" would be so as long as the ore was present, and there was also no guarantee that these jobs would go to Wisconsin workers. With all that under consideration, in addition to the serious questions about lack of data concerning soil composition and the subsequent potential for ecological damage/destruction of the nearby river and region, the benefits did not outweigh the risks.

If independent soil tests are made and publicized, and pollutants aren't present in sufficient quantity to cause damage; if all involved parties are convened to discuss the issue; and if legislation is written in a forthright manner, I'm sure a mine is possible. I'm just not certain these qualifying factors will align while Gov. Walker is in office-given the past experience. My opinion.

They don't have to redefine anything, they already allow mining and how it is written in Wisconsin it completely prevents it. The same precaution of sulfter would be taken here, not to mention that this mine was to use magnets instead of water to process the ore.

So 800 workers would commute for 30- 40 years from other areas of the world?

Get your exploration drill out and do some more "soil" tests. Then have a guy wearing a recall Walker shirt read the results to the senate. Your bias is showing, again.

It's going to be awesome when this mine opens up a few miles north, in Michigan, and the same ore is mined. "Polluting" the same water and land. Oh the horror.

Steve, the ore extends in "ribbons" across the region but other ores are also present in pockets. Soil testing indicates what is where. Why not just follow a procedure that ensures the environmental health of the region, which also derives income from tourism? I believe that is reasonable.

Soil testing is what you do when you build a road.

And/or exploring mining possibilities.

There's more to be gained by following a thoughtful process for an initiative with this much potential environmental and economic impact.

Isn't soil testing required to install high speed rail?

Yes it is. Hundreds of holes were drilled and tax money burned by Doyle.

Really Bren? The Conservatives and Tea Partiers that you have been belittling for so long, have as their mantra "More Freedom, Less Government". They are also the same people that you have been trying to equate with the Nazi party. Now all of sudden you are throwing them on the other side of the commonly accepted political spectrum?

Governor Walker and the Republican in Wisconsin returned more power to local governments, balanced the budget without raising taxes and has us on the road to a more vibrant economy. All this despite Barack Hussein Obama's policies which are driving us deeper in debt!

Anti, the mantra you attribute to the "conservatives" and Tea/GOP, "More Freedom, Less Government," is counter-intuitive. In a government system comprised of "We the People," "For the People," "By the People," etc., how does its diminishment contribute to increased freedom? It does not. Calls for smaller government, if fulfilled, would mean less voice for ordinary citizens and more for the few with the most resources, the essence of Orwell's satirical premise that All Animals are Created Equal/But some Animals are More Equal than Others.

I believe Orwell studied, first and foremost, how people were manipulated to accept ideology that contradicted their best interest. For the purposes of my post I also look beyond the minutia of Tea/Birch ideology to the manipulation of its economic voting base; the comparison and parallel lies therein.

What you describe as Governor Walker and the state GOP returning more power to local governments, I perceive in its practica a widening of the economic chasm/inequity. That is selective empowerment. The state budget as we know was balanced through the restructuring of debt which will incur an additional $20 million burden on state taxpayers. I believe it reasonable to assume that part if not all of this added debt will be paid through increased taxes and fees.

Concerning Pres. Obama's policies, consider that they were needed/implemented only because of the Great Recession, which started before he took office.

Bren wrote"..."We the People," "For the People," "By the People," etc., how does its diminishment contribute to increased freedom?..."

Bren, that is the most convoluted argument I have seen you post. and believe me you have had some whoppers.
How does larger government serve "We the People" better?
How does a larger bureaucracy work "For the People"?
How can a larger government be formed "By the People"?

Your Socialist state has been tried many times, and failed each time:
The French Revolution
The Paris Commune of 1871
The Soviet Union
Communist China (one of the most capitalistic nations today)

I heard this Ronald Regan quote one of Thomas Jefferson's finest observations:
"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."

Bren wrote: "...I believe Orwell studied, first and foremost, how people were manipulated to accept ideology that contradicted their best interest..."

That is known as propaganda Bren, getting people to develop a certain thought by manipulating facts and data. You have been very good at propagandizing the Leftist/Liberal/Socialist ideology. Don't think it hasn't escaped my notice.

Hoffa, Brian Dey, myself as well as many others, have cited facts along with their sources. Unlike your sources, ours have been unbiased. Nothing from HuffPost or DailyKos. We also haven't developed an unhealthy, unsubstantiated obsession with ALEC or the Koch Brothers. You seem to believe that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth, but in reality it just becomes a bigger lie.

You keep propagandizing for the Socialists, and I will keep posting verifiable facts and data!

Bren wrote; "What you describe as Governor Walker and the state GOP returning more power to local governments, I perceive in its practica a widening of the economic chasm/inequity. That is selective empowerment."

That's the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Liberals seem to think that someone in Washington can make decisions better than someone locally. Conservatives believe that the closer to the people the governmental entity, the better it's mission can be executed. City services should be handled at the city level, not decided by an unelected, or even elected, official that has never set foot in Greendale.

Bren wrote: "The state budget as we know was balanced through the restructuring of debt which will incur an additional $20 million burden on state taxpayers..."
Again, do you have a link, besides HuffPost or DailyKos?
Here's one for you: http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/wisconsin/wisconsin-debt-restructuring-plan-deadline-is-friday-february-25

Anti, I'll reiterate: We are the government. Limiting government limits us. Who benefits? Those with the most resources, who stand to benefit further from fewer regulations, taxes, etc.

That's not socialism. I've lived in a socialist country for a time so know the difference well. We have the power to change our Constitution.

As far as sources, I'll accept HuffPost with links to legitimate news sources. DailyKos is an online community. I've looked at their polling data which tracks to legitimate sources so accept those in general (averaged with other polling companies). What is written at that site is "citizen journalism." I don't consider DailyKos a legitimate news source. If an article links to a legitimate news source I would cite that, not the DailyKos article. Hope that clears it up.

So I have an unhealthy unsubstantiated obsession with ALEC and the Koch.brothers? I would agree that there is no evidence to suggest that I do. I am focused on the issue of special interest group interference in efficient government at the regional and national levels. ALEC is one example; it is topical because of the direct involvement in our state politics. There will always be those who believe they should receive preferential treatment; it needs to be controlled, if not by politicians, by voters.

Debt restructuring, how about Politifact as a source? http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/may/31/tom-barrett/barrett-says-walker-used-credit-card-approach-bala/

Bren, I like your link. What PF did not mention is that the City of Milwaukee carries twice the debt, just under one billion dollars, and that Barrett uses the very same "credit card approach" to manage the debt. I gotta get a credit card like that.

An interesting report:

http://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/fiscal-policy-report-card-americas-governors-2012
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/GRC2012.pdf

Greg: I am reading this white paper and I am struggling to find the measure of the grading system. From what I understand, the only goal to score a good grade is to cut taxes. Cut as much taxes and gov. spending.

So for Cato, this is all you need, right? Small gov. means the market is more free and we all prosper as a result. Is that about right or am I missing something more fundamental in the report?

I know I have a habbit of snark in Patch. I honestly don't want to sound snark,here. I really want to know. I am trying to read this report with an open mind and heart and want to make sure I am reading this correctly.

Greg, the issue with balancing the budget by restructuring debt and incurring new interest charges wasn't that Walker did it per se; it was because he claimed he would balance the budget using GAAP. That's quite a campaign promise, along with creating 250,000 new jobs during and immediately following the worst recession since the Great Depression. As I've said all along, such grandiose promises were unmeetable. As I've asked all along, why make such flamboyant promises part of your campaign platform when more reasonable goals would have done the job? 1. Did he not understand how ridiculous these promises were? Very possible indeed. 2. Was the goal simply to be elected and so making any fool promise was a means to that end? Very possible indeed. 3. 1 and 2? Very possible indeed.

@Bren....

So, why do you keep making the incorrect claim about the debt?
(I've lost track of how many times you have been corrected[where is Hoffa?])

You are correct: Walker said the budget would balance using GAAP, it is not in balance per GAAP. The failure to generate a GAAP budget is a reasonable point of criticism.

Bren,

Actually, Walker's goals were not over the top by past metrics. In fact, NPR's Planet Money did two episodes on Walker in his first year in office with the intent to discredit him. They interviewed a number of liberal and conservative economists, all of whom said that Walker's goals were easily reachable. With that in mind, NPR took the stance that governors can't do much about the short term (less than 10 years) economy of their states. NPR gave credit to the president for the certain future job growth in Wisconsin. Irony of ironies.

6 months after the first episode, PM did its second episode and interviewed more economists. The economists agreed that Walker would reach his goals if Greece and Europe managed their finances quickly and responsibly. Wisconsin's economy is too dependent upon Europe to overcome a weak US recovery AND a European downturn.

Point being, Walker was not making absurd promises.

Luke, Jay, you are entitled to your own creative interpretation of absurdity. My personal crap-o-meter is set low, I admit. I have no time for flying pigs.

Jay, not sure how you accuse me of making incorrect statements about the budget while simultaneously agreeing. I'd like to see a balanced state budget too, but would prefer to do it in a balanced, measured way that ensures kids are being fed and educated, and that the sick and elderly receive the care they need. I don't think that's a flying pig, it could be done if ideology could be set aside.

Unexpected punt.

Bren, Your crap-o-meter is very selective, I'm starting to think that you have a schoolgirl crush on the Governor.

Greg, I'm not sure which is more amusing, "schoolgirl" or "crush." ; ) Some unexpected wit!

I'm trying to figure out which one hit closer to home, or was the comment a ringer.

Unexpected Punt by Bren = she launched another flying pig, after time expired.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VJZyLTJhhM

Now Bren has her own theme song/video, too....

@Luke /Jay, BINGO!

Not sure why you think I'm "punting." My question to candidates is always "Can you do the job?" That's all I ask of any hire, no b.s.

Concerning Scott Walker, due to acquaintance I voted for his 2002 challenger, the late Jim Ryan. My knowledge of Walker prior to his taking office as County Executive was peripheral. Although it wasn't long before the stories about trying to fire workers, Blue Shirt contract cancellation, privatisation schemes that were more expensive than the status quo, etc., started coming forth. Subsequent direct experience with Walker and his county budget follies began to formulate the dawning view that his ambitions exceeded his gifts, so to "speak." That's why I didn't vote for him in 2010. Without the County Board of Supervisors to play "Dad," who knew what sort of hijinks he could get into (well we found out). To me that's more of a WTH than a crush but don't let me spoil your fun! That would spoil mine. ; )

How else are we going to 'FIND OUT WHAT'S IN IT', without some guinea pigs?

Works for me. Why not put them in the same exchange the rest of those who'll be forced to use it once comes our way? Why would we want to duplicate on the state level something the feds are going to force on us, anyways? Why have separate pools when we can have one, gigantic, happy pool that spreads the increased costs across a larger herd of Jay's guinea pigs?

Technically, no one is 'forced' to use any exchange, no matter who sets it up. Those with generous bosses will have insurance. Those with the money can buy whatever insurance they wish (and can afford). I daresay there will be various options within the exchange -- some of them quite luxurious. The rest of us are forced by economics to take whatever we can get. Nothing changes very much, except a few more of us get a shot at becoming insured.

An excellent point, Randy. Now I have another reason to be pleased that Gov. Walker is leaving the creation of our state's exchange in the more capable hands of the federal government. I also agree that enacting an extremist agenda may not sit too well considering that the un-gerrymandered presidential votes went in Obama's favor on November 6. I continue to believe that the majority of Wisconsinites are more interested in steady reasonable leadership than a hard right turn and off the ideological cliff. They will show their displeasure at the polls.

They are Nancy Pelosi's Guinea Pigs, Bob.(I just borrowed them for illustrative purposes only[none were harmed])

And the BF Skinner Box [AKA Obamacare] belongs to her, too;Shocking, isn't it.

All the more reason to force government employees into the system (as opposed to having healthcare being part of their benefits), Randy. If you expect your healthcare to actually be affordable, you better hope that happens. If enough people find they can't afford more than the penalty and find they have to forego insurance, with the remainder who decide to use the exchanges spread across numerous different pools, the net effect may be, ultimately, less people covered and more expensive healthcare for all. Not exactly the stated intent of the program.

Ah, I see Jay. Well then I expect they're the more luxurious looking long-haired, multi-colored variety as opposed to your standard government issue short haired "tail-less rat" variety most often associated with experiments gone awry.

Seeing as how Bren believes the federal government to have more than capable hands, one would expect her to volunteer to be a guinea pig for the exchanges.

@Bob McBride...Can I assume that your paper industry employer is going to throw you into the healthcare exchange? If that's not the case, then why are you so intent on seeing public employees going into the exchange? I would suspect your intent is not of the highest order and perhaps you're seeking some kind of misguided revenge against public employees. Of course you will probably claim that you are just trying to save the taxpayer money.

I'm self employed, Lyle. I'm insured through my wife's employer. It's entirely possible he may elect to discontinue to provide health insurance and take the penalty. Given the industry he's in and the size of the business, it wouldn't at all surprise me if he elected to discontinue to offer health insurance. Based on discussions I've had with customers, it's definitely something being considered at this point by some local businesses. If you follow any of the business publications, you'll find articles referencing companies re-evaluating their health insurance policies now that it appears inevitable that we'll be moving forward with ACA.

You seem rather defensive about this, Lyle. We're being told by those on your side of the political fence that this program will make healthcare more affordable. We're also being told that, in order for it to work, it needs the exchanges to contain pools that are as large as possible so that the increased costs associated with the additional coverage mandated can be spread across as many people as possible. Since this is a government mandated program that's being touted as better than what's currently available, it only seems right that, in order to make it as successful as possible, government employees should be mandated to participate - does it not?

How could you possibly disagree with that?

Why is joining the pool revenge, Lyle?

Since the majority of the people that do not currently have coverage are the young and healthy, their healthcare purchase/funding will lower costs for all participants,per the math provided by the advocates of this plan;this will be slam dunk win for the government employee that joins the pool.

Lyle wrote: "... why are you so intent on seeing public employees going into the exchange? I would suspect your intent is not of the highest order and perhaps you're seeking some kind of misguided revenge against public employees..."

It's not revenge Lyle. It is well known that the public sector unions have supported Democratic lawmakers for years. The same law makers that wrote laws favorable to public unions. The same lawmakers that formed a symbiotic financial relationship with the unions. And now, the same lawmakers that have forced EVERYONE to take health insurance and mandated government exchanges. The irony is that these same public sector employees may be now be moved into those exchanges.

THAT is poetic justice.

@Bob McBride...Now I understand your healthcare coverage issue. What concerns me in all cases is the idea that employers will see an opportunity to pad their bottom lines by throwing their employees under the bus. I think, that if an employer no longer wants to provide healthcare coverage that they should increase the salary or wages of the employee with what they would be paying in the employer's share of the premiums. If they don't then they are causing considerable financial distress to people who are already under stress. It doesn't matter whether the worker is private or public, the same applies.

It doesn't matter what my insurance plan is, Lyle. That's not the point. The point is that the program as it stands is so fraught with holes that even those in the voting block that Obama and the Democrats courted heavily and that came out in support for them bristles at the thought of being forced into it. It's brought to us by the party who constantly says it's working for those in the middle class. Based on the way its written, its the middle class and lower class that, potentially, take the biggest hit as employers utilize the exceptions and purposely low penalties it provides.

Whether that's intentional or just poorly written legislation is a matter of opinion. Regardless, if those in our government who are responsible for this legislation truly support it, they should be pushing to have all government employees at all levels moved into it. The theory behind it is based on having as large a pool of members in the exchange (and their should be only one as well - otherwise we're, once again, duplicating efforts at different government levels) as possible.

It's pretty obvious you want no part of it for yourself or anyone in your family. You don't seem willing to run the risks inherent in being a part of the experiment and I think you're making some errant assumptions about a transition to NHS due to the inherent faults in this program.

(cont'd from above).

Keep in mind that the only thing that got this through in the first place was an enormous sweetheart deal handed to the insurance companies. If you think they're going to cooperate with a transition to single payer, you're fooling yourself. And if you harbor some romantic notion of those experiencing the worst of ACA rising up and demanding a single payer system, you're, once again, fooling yourself. They've got too much on their plate as it is and if it turns out ACA adds to that burden they're more likely to take it out on those who forced it on them in the first place than they are to support those same folks when they come forward with ACA Rev 2.0.

If some employers believe that not offering health insurance as an employee benefit is going to yield the same worker calibre and longevity I believe they will be disappointed. Perhaps the current economic climate suggests workers will settle for anything but I believe that's a pipe dream. An individual may take a job that doesn't meet financial obligations in desperation but they are going to continue to search for a job that does. In these volatile days, an employment duration as short as 7 months carries little to no stigma. My only suggestion to employers thinking about ending benefits is to consider the potential opportunity costs of disenfranchising their workforce.

Employer-based healthcare is a screwed-up idea. For example, if you and your twin brother start the same job at the same time, and are otherwise paid equally, but he's on the company's health plan and you're not, then he's effectively getting WAY more compensation than you. So should the company pay you more in wages because you're not on the health plan? Or should it pay him less in wages because he is?

If the health exchange works out, then my company is going to drop our health plan and raise wages with -most- of the money saved. That way, we'll be able to design a fair system of compensation regardless of whether or not a particular employee is on the health plan. Something to think about.

Tao, Unfortunately that becomes taxable income, unless there is a way for the employee to maintain a HSA with employer contribution.

Greg,

Well, if I'm the guy who's not on the health plan, being compensated less than the guy who is, then the fact that I'll be getting new taxable income isn't a problem for me. I don't think employer contributions to health plans should be exempt from income taxes, anyway - it just goes towards perpetuating a system (employer-based health insurance) which is inefficient and unfair.

I'm sure that Mitt Romney was planning on closing that "loophole," too - although, I guess we'll never know. Maybe he'll provide some details in his memoirs.

Thank "da unions" for perpetuating this employer based tax free system of providing health insurance....it was their idea.

So, "Young Conservative," are you saying that the ACA is an effort by the Democratic Party that undermines the interests of labor unions? I don't think I've ever heard that characterization before.

I don't think the Democratic Party has a clue what it is doing with the ACA. If you don't think that the employer contributions should be exempt you're probably not going to be thrilled if Obama comes through with his promise to provide Obamacare health care tax credit to small business employers that provide health insurance.

Most democrats don't even know what is in the ACA, all they care about is that the GOP is against it and that their Lord Savior Baraka Hussein Abu oumama, King of the Luo Tribe authored it....thats all that counts.

@Young Conservative....Time to do some research. It was actually employers who introduced healthcare benefits in the late 1940s, to get around wage controls. Harry Truman wanted NHS, but could not get congress to support it. Employers introduced both healthcare and retirement to attract workers and then it became an item of labor negotiation. As I said, do your research and check your history.

@Terry...You are saying that it is the moral choice to support just a fraction of the electorate? I don't agree. Elected leaders have a responsibility to the electorate and not just party or ideology.

Don't issues like abortion and gay marriage affect just a portion of the electorate?

@Greg....Issues surrounding gays and abortion are social and impact civil rights and liberties only.

So they are off of the table? You included abortion in your list. Are the Democrats going to have an agenda or are they just throwing in the towel? Would Democrat obstructionism be representation of a fraction of the electorate?

@Greg....Obstructionism? I don't know what the Democratic plan is since I'm not a Democrat and in their inner circle. Are you stating that if the Democratic opposition doesn't go along with the GOP that it's obstructionism? The party in power usually sets the agenda unless they want to take a bipartisan approach.

Well then speculate, like you did for the Republican agenda above. You most definitely are not in the Republican inner circle.

As to obstructionism, I stated nothing I asked a question.

@Greg...I am not speculating about the Republican agenda. Everything I have mentioned is something that one Republican or another has brought up in public. If you paid closer attention, then you'd know I wasn't speculating.

@Greg...Your "question" on Democratic "obstructionism" was not really a question but a statement and you know it.

Actually it was a question, notice the "?". So the criteria is anything they have brought up in public. Restoration of collective bargaining for government sector employees would support only a fraction of the electorate, and therefore would be immoral. Correct?

@Greg...I think the only way to that collective bargaining would ever be restored if the State Supreme Court was to rule that Act 10 was unconstitutional.

Lyle, My questions have nothing to do with the specific issues, they are more to establish an understanding of a thought process. You seem to think that any Republican agenda issue will only "support just a fraction of the electorate", but that is not the case with the Democrats. Why would Democrat agenda issues be all encompassing for the electorate? How, as elected leaders, are Democrats more responsible to the electorate?

Richard, what happens when you stand in the middle of the road? You get hit by a car. Pick a side and fight like h*ll for your political beliefs. There is no room in America for Moderates. Do you think Obama is a Moderate? H*ll no, Obama is a political cage fighter h*ll bent on the destruction of his political adversaries. Obama's policies must be fought against with the same zeal that he wants to crush the Right. Pick a side man, I don't care if its Progressive of Conservative but please pick a side.

@Richard Head...No one has to move. As far as public employees go, if there are so many qualified people, then let them line up and apply and see how many are really qualified. Nothing is stopping them from applying except for experience and education.

@AWD....Time to go and review your copy of the 'Turner Diaries'.

Yeah, like the Dems have never redistricted.

Keith wrote: "If the Republican control of the state legislature wasn't due to them reapportioning safe districts you all would have a point. But it isn't..."

Have you looked at the legislative maps Keith? They are no worse than they had been. Have you read any of Governor Walker's jobs plans?

They are alot better than Barack Hussein Obama's stimulus that cost us $100,000 to create each job!

"Tricks and subterfuge" were what the Democrats used to get their candidate elected when he added $6 TRILLION to our national debt, when 46.7 million people are on food stamps, when federal spending is 28% higher than when he took office, and when real unemployment is still around 11%.

You tried stopping it. You failed. Instead of dwelling on your failures, look to your successes.

You helped Sandy Pasch get 98 some odd percent of the vote in Shorewood, allowing her to overcome her competitor who was trouncing her in the remainder of the 10th district. You got to prove just how progressive you folks in Shorewood are by making sure none of her well meaning but obviously in over their heads and possibly Amway backed black opponents who actually lived in the district won. And now Sandy's moved to your neighborhood. You are no longer represented by Alberta Darling, whom you hate with a passion. And Obama won.

You really have very little to whine about yet, somehow, you always manage to find something. What a delight you must be during the holiday season.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAeqVGP-GPM

You may be right about Obama, but RTW won't happen under Walker.

@Terry...It isn't a dodge but a philosophical principle. When Democrats took control in 2008 they only had a rubber stamp majority for less than six months in Congress. After the Senate became 41% to 59%, nothing got done. The Republicans didn't represent any will to cooperate and now we're in a mess facing a fiscal cliff. In any case, I didn't agree with ACA and still don't. We should have remained focused on the economy. Same goes for the state legislature, it's about creating employment and not social agenda.

If you have been reading and following, the electorate has had it with the mess and they're not tolerating it. Currently the Republicans are being held accountable and it will happen in the state also if the Republican controlled legislature doesn't learn from the national sentiment.

@lyle... I laugh at how YOU lefties claim that nothing could be done because the Dems only held a 59-41 advantage... and you are in no way a moderate. However, using your same logic do you blame Democrats here in Wisconsin because they have been the uncooperative minority in the Senate?

The question 'Mike is OC' asked Lyle begs repeating: "However, using your same logic do you blame Democrats here in Wisconsin because they have been the uncooperative minority in the Senate?"

FYI: The Republicans have never held a 60 seat 'super-majority'.

This basically what it always comes down to. When Democrats win, it's a rejection of right wing ideology. When Republicans win, it's still a rejection of right wing ideology because the win was a cheat or a fluke or misbegotten in some other fashion. You guys just find it so hard to believe that there are actual people out there who find your side lacking and find something they're looking for on the right. You need to get out of Milwaukee, Shorewood, Madison, Wauwatosa, away from academia and other bastions of tight-knit lefty idealism once in a while and visit those areas you detest and actually talk to some of those people. They are out there. The Republicans don't have things so rigged that a small minority of the population is calling the shots at election time in this state.

You got your way on the national level. Whether you want to admit it or not you had enough time to ram through all the stuff you wanted. If you'd had an experienced leader in office at the time rather than someone who, along with the head of the House, decided they'd rather go on extended victory tours than get some work done it could have been taken advantage of. You guys dropped the ball, gave us a crappy healthcare program you don't even want to be involved in and the guy at the top so loathes having to negotiate with the opposition (which he went out of his way to tick off early on) face to face, your entire party is stymied. Fix your own house first. Redistricting isn't your problem.

@Bob McBride...It's not surprising your response. The political right has been misreading the electorate all along. As the next two years unfold it will become even more evident. Conservatism is on the wane pushed along by extreme social conservatism. As soon as the conservatives shed themselves of the religious right social conservatives the quicker their message will ring home. Republican's in an effort to satisfy the religious right fundamentalism is now the party of anti-science and generally regarded as the "party of stupid". So engrained is the ideology that reasonable intelligent people reject the message of the right. They might not be rushing to the left, but they are definitely no longer listening to the right.

The main plank that Walker ran on was job creation and it has been his greatest failure to date. With all of the chips on his side of the table, where are the miracles?

Lyle,

Walker won by a wider margin than Obama. For all your whining about jobs, one would think that you must have come up with a reason that Obama hasn't kept his promises in that regard. After all, he has had plenty of opportunity, and more money than anyone ever imagined. And he only spent 3% on infrastructure.

The truth be told, all politicians made promises that were based upon what their economic advisers were telling them. Those advisers assumed that past metrics were a good reference when predicting future growth. If past metrics applied, we could have expected 7% growth, given the depth of the economic contraction. However, past metrics did not apply, and Obama has already shot his wad and used the stimulus to pay back his special interests, rather than strengthen the nation's infrastructure.

In this regard, Walker will suffer because of Obama's ineptness, but it won't affect the outcome of the election. Walker will win again, as the bipartisan results of exit polls indicated when people were asked if they approved of Walker on Nov. 6th of this month.

Lyle, once again, you're underestimating the number of people who DON'T reject all that stuff. I'm not saying I agree with them. I'm saying they're out there.

The presidential election was not a landslide. They never are. It wasn't 80/20, 70/30 or even 60/40. It was 51% to 47.5%. 47.5% of the voters, apparently, didn't have a problem with all the stuff the Republicans were promoting and preferred it to what the Democrats were promoting. That isn't a wholesale rejection of all those things you detest. It's not like either party was running on some hidden agenda only you're smart enough to detect. The cards were out on the table.

Unless you spend a lot of time, like I do, visiting areas outside of Milwaukee, Madison, etc, getting to know the people, listening to the conversations, you aren't going to be aware of how many people actually believe in all that stuff on your list. They're not being fooled by anyone. They believe it, whether it's right or not.

The 99% and the 1% are not real. They're political contrivances. Suggesting that this last election was a rejection of all things Republican shows no less ignorance in light of the actual election results than do the beliefs of the people who, in fact, support the Republican agenda you detest.

This is the two Americas. It's not rich versus poor. It's more urban versus rural. If you spend most of your time in one and not the other, it's easy to assume there aren't many of the others.

@Bob McBride...I know that there isn't a consensus for either side. However, its been pretty well established that Walker's recall survival wasn't a vote of approval for Walker but against the recall. That was established in the exit polling in both the June 6th and November 6th elections. Obama defeated Romney by almost 7% in Wisconsin.

You mention going outside of the metro areas to see what people really think. I have plenty of contact outside these areas and it is a mixed bag. I also recognize that more rural areas are generally more conservative. However, Tammy Baldwin had to capture some of that rural vote in order to be elected. Just as the left needs to continue to reevaluate and change, so does the right. Look what has happened to Norquist's no tax pledge, it has gone by the wayside. Also, the Florida Republican Party's recent admission to attempting voter suppression. Things are really looking up for the right.

Lyle, this is the same song we heard from your side in 2008, along with the same predictions going forward. The death knell for the GOP. Then came 2010.

Sans Obama to lock in the urban turnout next time around, unless the economy is on the upswing and ACA turns out to be as promised, you had better hope Hillary can energize enough women to vote their gender, otherwise all bets are off.

I doubt you cover as much of the outlying areas as I do. Having "contact" in the area isn't the same thing as actually being there. Please, by all means, underestimate the degree to which the Republican platform has support in those areas. Please continue to refer to them as members of the "party of the stupid". Please continue to insult them, minimize them, make fun of them, ridicule their beliefs. That worked so well after 2008 and if you wonder why they turned out to hand your party its collective behind in 2010, you don't have to look much further than your exuberant overconfidence and public disdain for the party and its members. Nothing much has changed, overall since 2010 on the national level. On the state level, whatever microscopic gains made in 2011 were erased in 2012. The Democratic resurgence of 2011-12 has essentially resulted in a null game.

Bask in that while taunting your opponents and we may see what more you can lose in 2014 - and beyond.

@Bob McBride....I think you're making threats that may have trouble coming to fruition. Unless we get wide spread job growth in the state, then the Walker era will be pretty much over. As long as the state legislature wants to play with social policy agendas, it takes away from the focus on the economy.

And you're arguing the exact same case I'm making as to why your assumptions about the implications of the recent election as an indication that the country is rejecting the Republicans on a wholesale basis are faulty. Forever's till Friday. Overconfidence on anyone's part is foolhardy. You guys seem to glom onto it, bask in it and let your opportunities pass you by when they occur. The State's Republicans are moving forward with their plans, like them or not, and taking advantage of the situation as it stands now. Regardless of your opinion of their efforts, they're making them. Kicking the can down the road (the fiscal cliff is a mirage), heading back out on the campaign trail because that's where you feel more at home and effective (Obama taking his tax message out on the road) isn't any more likely to preserve your party's hold in the national arena than it is to actually address, head on, the critical issues that face us.

@Bob McBride....Yes, the state Republicans are moving forward and we'll all pay the price for their mistaken ideology.

And as I've said in the past, they're not doing anything that can't be undone by future state administrations, should the electorate wish that to happen. Compare that to ACA (which, again, I'll note you want no part of, despite it being the brainchild of the guy you voted into office). It'll be very, very difficult to undo the changes it will make to the entire healthcare industry and our economy as a whole, should those prove to be as undesirable as I suspect they will be.

@Lyle... you still never answered my question.... do you blame Democrats here in Wisconsin because they have been the uncooperative minority in the Senate?

@Mike in OC...Blame Senate Democrats when the Republican's didn't need them to pass anything, only to create a quorum for budget passage. Therefore, your point and question is moot.

@Lyle -

Sorry Lyle, but Hoffa is going to disagree with you here.

DC Republicans use the filibuster to prevent a vote from occurring in the federal Senate.

Wisconsin Democrats use the tactic of fleeing the state and neglecting their job duties to prevent a vote from occurring in the Wisconsin Senate.

In both instances, we're talking about blocking a vote from occurring. The difference is that the Republicans are following the rules in blocking the vote from occurring, while the Democrats in this state acted like they were above the law and didn't have to be in Madison to vote on legislation, a requirement of their express job duties.

Thus, Mike in OC's point and question are not moot.

Try again.

@JRH...State Senate Democrats didn't do anything illegal and therefore the issue is moot.

@Lyle -

Federal Republican Senators using the filibuster is not illegal.

While what Wisconsin Senate Democrats did may not have been 'illegal,' via enforcement of penalties through the judiciary, they did in fact violate express Constitutional provisions, as well as Senate rules, requiring their attendance in Madison.

Wisconsin Constitution, Article IV, Section 7.

Wisconsin Constitution, Article IV, Section 28.

Wisconsin State Senate, Rule 23.

Article IV Section 7 states that legislators can be legally and forcibly compelled to attend legislative functions. And the Senate rules expressly state that absence/leave from a function must be granted ahead of time. Thus, it's quite clear that part of the "duties" referenced in Article IV, Section 28, is to be present in Madison during official legislative functions. The Dems could not fulfill those duties in IL.

No where does it expressly or implicitly state that such "duties" include fleeing the state for the sole purpose of avoiding the compulsory attendance that is expressly granted by the state Constitution.

And the federal Republican Senators never coordinated wearing goofy t-shirts while shouting down their cross aisle counterparts, the way in which WI Senate Democrats did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7w1b6a6vmA

Again Lyle, your argument is unsupported. Just admit that the Wisconsin Senate Democrats were wrong and that such caucus is an even more uncooperative body than federal GOP Senators.

Anyone with a half a brain already knew the Kenyan was a communist.

@FTT .. Pravda ... So similiar to the MSM here in the states

The earth is young .. how do old earthers explain, not enough salt in the oceans, not enough sediment in the oceans, folded rock layers that are supposedly millions of years seperated like in the grand canyon, C14 in diamonds and all fossils, magnetic field being to strong, soft tissue found in T Rex bone that had to be cut in half to move out of dig site and the list goes on and on .. but i think you just don't have a clue .. ignorance is bliss Troy

Anything like the ignorance of denying decades of verifiable science in regards to the age of the earth? I guess I agree with you. Easer to accept one book of fiction compared to the effort and knowledge required to get fact.

From reviewing the site - Pravda is terrible. Though the content seems a whole lot more Fox News than MSNBC - I think that who is what you were trying to dig. Who knows anymore...

Please Troy explain to me the various ways they prove the earth is billions of years old .. is it just one freakin way, out of 100's of ways you can derive the age of the earth. I just listed a handfull of ways to date the earth that the evolutionists have a hard time explaining and there is more ... but you should definetly change your handle "freethought" just doesn't seem right

Johnny
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

So the fact that this is not 100% positive proof, we should take "on faith" a document that is 0% positive proof?

Insulting my name doesn't make your point less absurd.

@Johnny Blade...Your grasp of evolution, geology, cosmology, theoretic physics and any number of other disciplines, leaves much to be desired. There are only a few crackpots in the science disciplines who don't accept the science that has answered most of the questions. In the universe's 13.5 billion years and the earths 4.5 billion years, "long time" explains most of the phenomena. For you to reject science based on such flimsy evidence, definitely puts you in the stupid group.

Actually there is a theory that the universe is part of a multiverse- which has no beginning of time. Under that theory, universes are constantly being created. But even under that assumption, it does not discredit the Bible.
God created the Earth in 7 days. How long was a day back in the 'beginning'- or at the time of creation?
We consider our day to be one revolution of the Earth yet we know the speed at which the planet rotates has been changed.
Might I suggest we interject sex into the discussion as well as religion?
I will even post a picture to get the ball rolling.

Craig, I agree that science and faith are not mutually exclusive. For example, science can provide "what" and "how" and faith some "why," but all are intertwined.

@Craig...My interpretation of Genesis is metaphorical and allegorical. I agree that the narrative does not refer to a common sense of time. I am fully aware of the theories concerning multiverses and the implications on creation theory and the impact on belief systems. The laws of physics for this universe are what is relative to scientific investigation, the rest is theoretical conjecture.

Am I living in an alternate universe? Holy cow. I agree with Bren and Lyle at the same time. Not on everything mind you, but this is a good start.

People having been buying cheap foreign goods for a long time, Johnny. How do we get them to buy American?

@Bottom Line....Why is the only success you count, economics? There are many metrics of success that have nothing to do with making money. People like yourself discount anyone who doesn't follow the business model. Your assumption that liberals are not successful in business is faulty. The other faulty assumption is that to be successful economically that one must be amoral, with justifying all business practice based on achieving R.O.I.

Those who choose to serve the needs of others are to be discounted? Are all jobs that aren't economic just consolation jobs? Where is the value of pride in work? Why in your world is all metrics based on competition and win/lose scenarios? If we have to give employment security to those who take on thankless jobs that the rest of us couldn't do or wouldn't take on, why is non-competition and security to high a price to pay?

Lyle's keeping the traffic flowing around here, FWTW. I may not agree with him much but hopefully the folks at Patch recognize that without him contributing pretty regularly and letting us rag on him, there wouldn't be much else going at this point in time. One can get only so wound up about ice fishing equipment needs, new pizza joints, REAL food, etc. So give him that - at the very least.

Lyle ... "Why is the only success you count, economics?" It isn't, I never said anything suggesting as much.

"There are many metrics of success that have nothing to do with making money." True, I doubt any would disagree.

"People like yourself discount anyone who doesn't follow the business model." False, I never suggested such nonsense.

"Your assumption that liberals are not successful in business is faulty." I never said this either. People can debate the reason Bill Gates succeeded in business, none could say he isn't liberal.

"The other faulty assumption is that to be successful economically that one must be amoral, with justifying all business practice based on achieving R.O.I." ... and you decided this because ... ???????

"Those who choose to serve the needs of others are to be discounted?" Those who choose to serve the needs of others should be thanked, complimented, revered, respected, and joined.

"Are all jobs that aren't economic just consolation jobs?" I can't imagine what I said that conjured this question. BTW ... what is a consolation job?

"Where is the value of pride in work?" It depends ... on the consumer. You can be proud of what you do, as can anyone, but it won't ensure value to others.

"Why in your world is all metrics based on competition and win/lose scenarios?" Again I'm left to wonder what I wrote that caused you to ask such a question. ... and for what it's worth, it isn't.

"If we have to give employment security to those who take on thankless jobs that the rest of us couldn't do or wouldn't take on, why is non-competition and security to high a price to pay?" If the rest of us couldn't or wouldn't (your example) take a position that is essential the value of that position would sky rocket. However, protecting the position from competition belies your example. You wouldn't have to protect the individual in your example.

Perhaps you could respond to my post.

@Bottom Line....Specifically, everyone wants to make it a discussion and debate on economics. My point is it just isn't economics and the discussion must delve into much deeper values.

My statement of business amorality is from 35 years in business, from self ownership to multinationals that I have worked for. I began to see a shift in business practices beginning in the late 1970s from strategic planning models of 5 to 10 years to tactical planning of 1 year or less. In the publicly companies I worked for, I saw the executive management make decisions to meet the next quarter's R.O.I. at the expense of long term growth and security. Too much immediate gratification and not enough sound business practice. Corporate executives replace brand loyalty and innovation with quarterly bonuses and golden parachutes. Business created the mess we're in and wants to avoid, at all costs, the consequences of disrepute. Ethical business has become an oxymoron. Just follow these comments on the Patch for any length of time and my position is justified.

The problem about employment security for government workers is that since the private sector doesn't understand the difference in agencies and the work mandated to be performed, there is a general discount of that work and not the full value is understood. For example, the social worker who is called out at 3:00 AM to retain some children and find a place for them to sleep after the household was a scene of a crime. (continued)

@Bottom Line (continued)...That same social worker can't go home after their job is done, they must file all the paperwork and possibly appear in court the next day. Beginning salary for a beginning social worker with a degree is around $36K/annum. In addition they must receive their state license within a year of graduation or their fired. Generally, these types of positions are high turn over because of burnout. Do we reward this type of dedicated public service with insecurity and uncertainty? Would you do this kind of work?

It happens over and over again. People view public servants as nothing more than lazy leaches, just eating at the public trough. The only two groups that get any kind of respect and recognition are law enforcement and fire fighters. Its funny that the only two groups that avoided the ACT-10 were law enforcement and fire fighters. That goes to show you how much the general public respects their public servants. If that is how we are going to treat "our employees", we are not very good employers.

@Keith Best...You're a piece of work.

@Keith - Ad hominen attacks are childish. Is this the approved method of rhetoric for the executive board of the Waukesha GOP?

@Bottom Line...I am not acknowledging your accuracy, but I don't want to take the time to go deeper into the subject. I am sure we'll pick it up on other issues in the future.